Russia, US, Ukraine, and the Future

[Mithradates]

Here is an article that largely mirrors my own understanding of the timeline of this invasion and the current status quo:
https://nationalinterest.org/feature...debacle-210160

Yeah, one of the most pro-Kremlin institutions in Washington, thats your mirror.

Here is another article from them, this one is from Maria Butina, a convicted Russian spy, I think this says enough about them.

[Alastor]

Yeah, one of the most pro-Kremlin institutions in Washington, thats your mirror.

Here is another article from them, this one is from Maria Butina, a convicted Russian spy, I think this says enough about them.

One of the most pro-Kremlin institutions in Washington according to who? Before putting on labels why don't you try reading instead. This outlet often hosts articles from many guest authors who have their own takes. The outlet's overall bias is largely republican domestically (their parent company was founded by Nixon afterall) and realist when it comes to international politics. Which is also generally the school of thought in international politics I am closest to which is why I will sometimes find articles there that I agree with.

Now to go back to what I actually said. That was, here is an article that largely mirrors my understanding of the timeline. Not here is an outlet that does. The author of that article is one Matthew Blackburn of whom I don't know too much about. Aside of course from finding that I happen to mostly agree with what he says in that specific article. Reading, comprehending and evaluating for yourself are skills that are sorely lacking in a world so eager to plaster labels on everything in order to avoid wrongthink, underequipped to resist it as they are. That is unfortunate, but I can't help you with that. Until you start actually reading articles/opinions from all kinds of sources, spotting the bias on your own and thinking for yourself you'll just remain ignorant. I mean I even read CNN still, imagine that.

Seems the sarcasm was lost on this one...unless this was some 4-D chess mega sarcasm.

Sarcasm? Is that what you call strawmen these days? I ignored your previous post because it was an obvious, pathetic and worthless strawman. Not because it was some high class, acerbic, witty piece of sarcasm as it seems you are imagining.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

I mean I even read CNN still, imagine that.

Seriously, did CNN bully you in school or something?

[Coughdrop addict]

Seriously, did CNN bully you in school or something?

Back in the day when the right was mostly all enamored with Putin as the big strong savior of the white race, he had his agents telling them that Obama was a secret Muslim born in Kenya who was going to institute Taliban-style sharia. CNN said that was all ridiculous lies, so Putin's propagandists spent a lot of effort telling his dupes that CNN was all fake news controlled by Soros. They succeeded to the point some of them began to think that nothing CNN reports is real, even things like earthquakes.

Now that some on the left see Putin as the big strong savior of the downtrodden from the evil US, Putin's agents have put a new coat of paint on the old propaganda for them. Now CNN is all lies for saying things like Russia is committing war crimes in Ukraine or that Putin wasn't forced to invade against his will by the US.

[mishkin]

it is very limiting to be unable to hate NATO/US imperialism and also Putin. Wake up, breathe, there are reasons to hate them both, and here we would be talking about the same reason: their imperialism, the desire or need for supremacy felt by those who feel "supreme" or want to expand their greatness for their own interests

[reavertm]

Yeah, one of the most pro-Kremlin institutions in Washington, thats your mirror.

And their About page says this:

"Our Honorary Chairman was former U.S. Secretary of State Henry Kissinger from 1994 until his passing in 2023."

[Coughdrop addict]

it is very limiting to be unable to hate NATO/US imperialism and also Putin. Wake up, breathe, there are reasons to hate them both, and here we would be talking about the same reason: their imperialism, the desire or need for supremacy felt by those who feel "supreme" or want to expand their greatness for their own interests

There is no such thing as NATO/US imperialism. NATO/US are not invading other countries to subjugate them, steal their resources, and enslave their populations. NATO is a VOLUNTARY organization, one that most nations bordering Russia rushed to join after the Soviet Union fell because they rightly feared Russia would try to re-subjugate them. These are facts that no amount of Kremlin propaganda will change.

[mishkin]

There is no such thing as NATO/US imperialism. NATO/US are not invading other countries to subjugate them, steal their resources, and enslave their populations. NATO is a VOLUNTARY organization, one that most nations bordering Russia rushed to join after the Soviet Union fell because they rightly feared Russia would try to re-subjugate them. These are facts that no amount of Kremlin propaganda will change.

The United States exercises its power in a more civilized way (or at least more secretly), but its tentacles (call it influence) extend throughout the world, from the Middle East to Guantanamo with a stop at any of its bases in Europe.

If you want to talk about slavery we can talk about the working conditions of US companies/subsidiaries in foreign countries or about the maquiladoras.

If you want to talk about resource theft, please, the term banana republic is a result of US policy.

Putin is worse, but trying to paint the US as the white knight is ridiculous. Since the Second World War they have not taken a step abroad that is not for their own benefit.

[Coughdrop addict]

If you want to bang on about the US in the 1950's be my guest. But don't pretend we aren't the better choice today.

I will ask you the question I ask all free-thinking enlightened centrists. Why did so many former Warsaw Pact and former Soviet states rush to join NATO? Were they tricked into it? Or did they decide that, for all it's faults, joining the western US-led world was a better deal then the traditional Russian offer of brutality and exploitation?

[Kyriakos]

Isn't Russia slowly taking over more areas in the eastern front? (south of Kharkov, the region which leads to Dnieper)
There are rumours of a plan (by Russia) to try a major offensive in the middle of summer.

[nhytgbvfeco2]

Yes, the fascists are currently on the offensive and have advanced in multiple areas, including the fall of Avdiivka.

[Kyriakos]

It does look like Russia may be able to break through the eastern front - and then continue to the Dnieper (which ultimately flows through Kiev too) since afaik it is farmland most of the way to there and can't be fortified like the current front.
But another scenario - for me even worse, because it will be world war - is that if Russia breaks through, some Nato countries may intervene.
It is difficult by now to expect such a humiliation by Russia to be allowed (I am not talking about Ukraine, that is a victim country, I mean a humiliation of the US), so we may yet see more sides getting into war.

[mishkin]

"Don't attack Hitler, it would be World War II".

[Kyriakos]

Not world war 2, back then there weren't even missiles (the nazis developed them in the war), let alone nukes.

[AqD]

A world war is between equal opponents. Russian military is not.

It would not be a war but a punishment, like a slap on the butt of a bully kid.


Our inaction and refusal of violence have done us irreparable damage already. Look how many mercenaries and governments joined their side. There will be a lot of cleaning to do after this show.

As for nukes, I'm willing to bet most of theirs don't work while ours do. Losing a city or two to terminate an enemy is an acceptable loss.

[Kyriakos]

Ok, but you will need to be believing on a religious scale, to think Russia has only enough working nukes to take out "a city or two".

[AqD]

Ok, but you will need to be believing on a religious scale, to think Russia has only enough working nukes to take out "a city or two".

It is wrong to live with evil.

Those who cause it must be eliminated, and we have the power to do it today, right now.

I'd remind everyone that the only reason they're allowed to become a threat is because we didn't carpet nuke them right at the end of ww2.

If we're so worried, just strike all their cities and allies at once. The loss is nothing compared to the future of our next generation, whoever survives.


If we had half the determination, Putin would piss his pants before he even thinks of invading anyone.

[Kyriakos]

So you support Israel being eliminated, or is it just Russia? Since there is a little first act of a massive regional war there now.

[Lord Thesaurian]

I'd remind everyone that the only reason they're allowed to become a threat is because we didn't carpet nuke them right at the end of ww2.

Technically true, but in reality the US didn’t have the technology or munitions to do anything of the sort before the soviets developed their own deterrent. The handful of nukes that could have been built in time would have been dropped from planes that would have been unlikely to make it through soviet air defense.

If we're so worried, just strike all their cities and allies at once. The loss is nothing compared to the future of our next generation, whoever survives.

An awfully big bet to make though, based purely on faith that 99.9% of Russian nukes don’t actually work. And while this makes some sense on paper (I believe recent AI wargames concluded the “optimal” path to world peace is to drop some nukes on russia and china), humans are emotional actors. The West doesn’t have the luxury of being a communist antihero, wiping out tens of millions for the greater good while still retaining a devoted intellectual and ideological following. We would be the bad guys, and rightly so.

[mishkin]

It is wrong to live with evil.

Those who cause it must be eliminated, and we have the power to do it today, right now.

I'd remind everyone that the only reason they're allowed to become a threat is because we didn't carpet nuke them right at the end of ww2.

If we're so worried, just strike all their cities and allies at once. The loss is nothing compared to the future of our next generation, whoever survives.


If we had half the determination, Putin would piss his pants before he even thinks of invading anyone.

Are you seriously defending the idea that the United States should preventively or as punishment raze Russian and Belarusian cities? Does anyone else take this argument as reasonable?